A Couple of Fair Questions

[rjonesx]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

So this will be the second objection I have responded to today that was on the segment Dr. Craig did of the 10 most terrible arguments against the KCA that he has seen. The objection goes like this: "What really 'begins to exist?' All we see is rearrangements of preexisting matter. The only thing that we can really say 'began to exist' is the universe. Since we have never seen anything begin to exist, we have no evidence that things can't come into existence uncaused." I won't mention how the objector is still in a sticky situation even if we grant him his objection, but this is just a terrible, terrible objection that is indicative of youtube atheists and "internet infidels."

We could go into how to distinguish existing things from non-existing things. We could even point to the fact that things come into existence all of the time as thoughts, which is what Anselm alluded to by talking about a being that existed in his mind. But I think a careful thought experiment is in order. I like to think of an Xbox 360 remote controller. That remote controller is powered by batteries. The batteries are made of things like Li-ion and NiCd. That remote is not going to work unless whatever makes up the batteries are arranged in the right way. That is to say, those batteries are only called batteries when they are able to do their intended function. Until then they are not batteries. So if nothing begins to exist, then what does that battery exist as before the combination of its parts? The thing is: It doesn't. If it did we could refer to it as a battery. For me never to "come into existence" I would have to exist before the union of my father's sperm and my mother's egg, but that's nonsensical.

[redtilt1]

So this will be the second objection I have responded to today that was on the segment Dr. Craig did of the 10 most terrible arguments against the KCA that he has seen. The objection goes like this: "What really 'begins to exist?' All we see is rearrangements of preexisting matter. The only thing that we can really say 'began to exist' is the universe. Since we have never seen anything begin to exist, we have no evidence that things can't come into existence uncaused." I won't mention how the objector is still in a sticky situation even if we grant him his objection, but this is just a terrible, terrible objection that is indicative of youtube atheists and "internet infidels."

We could go into how to distinguish existing things from non-existing things. We could even point to the fact that things come into existence all of the time as thoughts, which is what Anselm alluded to by talking about a being that existed in his mind. But I think a careful thought experiment is in order. I like to think of an Xbox 360 remote controller. That remote controller is powered by batteries. The batteries are made of things like Li-ion and NiCd. That remote is not going to work unless whatever makes up the batteries are arranged in the right way. That is to say, those batteries are only called batteries when they are able to do their intended function. Until then they are not batteries. So if nothing begins to exist, then what does that battery exist as before the combination of its parts? The thing is: It doesn't. If it did we could refer to it as a battery. For me never to "come into existence" I would have to exist before the union of my father's sperm and my mother's egg, but that's nonsensical.

You example doesnt work, the battery is still made up of atoms which do no come into existence when you make the battery, you are just re arranging pre exisitng materials into a different form. You can call that different form a name and say it came into existence, but if the unvierse had a beginning, then the process is nothing like you analogy. If the universe had a beginning then it is not simply a re arrangement of rpe existing materials. When you make a battery it is, when you make a battery there was a prior moment , if the unvvierse had a beginning there was no prior moment.

[Sam Harper]

I agree with Jeffrey, that things do begin to exist, and it's absurd to suggest that they don't.  Granted, the beginning of the existence of some things (like ourselves) is the result of a rearrangement of pre-existing material, that does not undermine the fact that new structures begin to exist.

I think what the objection is trying to say is that all of our observations are of things that begin to exist ex-materia, and we have no observations of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.  If all of our observations show that things which begin to exist have causes, then we're justified in thinking everything that begins to exist has a cause whether it begins ex-materia, ex-nihilo, or whatever.  Since this is an inductive argument, we can't have certainty about the conclusion, and it leaves open at least the possibility of something beginning to exist without a cause, but any exception to the general rule that is made without good justification for why the general rule does not apply in that particular case commits the fallacy of special pleading.

But there's another response to the objection that we only observe things beginning to exist ex-material (i.e. rearrangement of pre-existing material), and we have no observation of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  The objection is based on the false assumption that the only way we "know" it's impossible for something to begin ex-nihilo without a cause is by observation.  That assumption is false because our knowledge of the impossibility of something beginning to exist ex-nihilo without a cause is given to us by a rational intuition.  We can rationally grasp the impossibility merely by inward reflection, the same way we grasp the laws of logic and the axioms of geometry.  So we could know this principle is true without having to observe causation in the external world at all.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

So this will be the second objection I have responded to today that was on the segment Dr. Craig did of the 10 most terrible arguments against the KCA that he has seen. The objection goes like this: "What really 'begins to exist?' All we see is rearrangements of preexisting matter. The only thing that we can really say 'began to exist' is the universe. Since we have never seen anything begin to exist, we have no evidence that things can't come into existence uncaused." I won't mention how the objector is still in a sticky situation even if we grant him his objection, but this is just a terrible, terrible objection that is indicative of youtube atheists and "internet infidels."

We could go into how to distinguish existing things from non-existing things. We could even point to the fact that things come into existence all of the time as thoughts, which is what Anselm alluded to by talking about a being that existed in his mind. But I think a careful thought experiment is in order. I like to think of an Xbox 360 remote controller. That remote controller is powered by batteries. The batteries are made of things like Li-ion and NiCd. That remote is not going to work unless whatever makes up the batteries are arranged in the right way. That is to say, those batteries are only called batteries when they are able to do their intended function. Until then they are not batteries. So if nothing begins to exist, then what does that battery exist as before the combination of its parts? The thing is: It doesn't. If it did we could refer to it as a battery. For me never to "come into existence" I would have to exist before the union of my father's sperm and my mother's egg, but that's nonsensical.

You example doesnt work, the battery is still made up of atoms which do no come into existence when you make the battery, you are just re arranging pre exisitng materials into a different form. You can call that different form a name and say it came into existence, but if the unvierse had a beginning, then the process is nothing like you analogy. If the universe had a beginning then it is not simply a re arrangement of rpe existing materials. When you make a battery it is, when you make a battery there was a prior moment , if the unvvierse had a beginning there was no prior moment.

The distinction that Sam made is important. We have never seen something be created from nothing, but we do see things created from preexisting material, which is what Aristotle would call a material cause. The former he would call a sufficient cause. Matter itself could not have a material cause, but it could have a sufficient cause. We don't see causation by creation ex nihlo, but we do see sufficient causes all time.

Yes, my sandwich consists of bread, turkey, cheese,  lettuce, and mustard, but that sandwich n did not exist until I put it together, and if it did, it would have existed as yeast, a turkey, cow's milk, and a plant all at the same time. Does that make sense? If I added tomato, which was just a part of another sandwich that Barak Obama gave me (by the objection's logic, it is a preexisting sandwich), would I have two sandwiches? Would the sandwiches be the same?

You see the logical absurdities that this objection brings? Let's grant the objection. All it says is we have no empirical basis of true casualty. What are its implications? That the universe may have existed eternally, but that's nonsensical. I'm sure I don't have go into Hilbert's Hotel to prove we have philosophical reasons to believe the universe has a cause.

God bless.

[Lambert]

I agree with Jeffrey, that things do begin to exist, and it's absurd to suggest that they don't.  Granted, the beginning of the existence of some things (like ourselves) is the result of a rearrangement of pre-existing material, that does not undermine the fact that new structures begin to exist.

I think what the objection is trying to say is that all of our observations are of things that begin to exist ex-materia, and we have no observations of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.  If all of our observations show that things which begin to exist have causes, then we're justified in thinking everything that begins to exist has a cause whether it begins ex-materia, ex-nihilo, or whatever.  Since this is an inductive argument, we can't have certainty about the conclusion, and it leaves open at least the possibility of something beginning to exist without a cause, but any exception to the general rule that is made without good justification for why the general rule does not apply in that particular case commits the fallacy of special pleading.

But there's another response to the objection that we only observe things beginning to exist ex-material (i.e. rearrangement of pre-existing material), and we have no observation of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  The objection is based on the false assumption that the only way we "know" it's impossible for something to begin ex-nihilo without a cause is by observation.  That assumption is false because our knowledge of the impossibility of something beginning to exist ex-nihilo without a cause is given to us by a rational intuition.  We can rationally grasp the impossibility merely by inward reflection, the same way we grasp the laws of logic and the axioms of geometry.  So we could know this principle is true without having to observe causation in the external world at all.

Yes but reason is the enemy of intuition and that is why illumination is not a product of thinking.

I think that everything is created ex-nihilo to be formed after the image it is created to be, that so is why creation is the leading edge of evolution that rearranges particles by design from within.

[redtilt1]

I agree with Jeffrey, that things do begin to exist, and it's absurd to suggest that they don't.  Granted, the beginning of the existence of some things (like ourselves) is the result of a rearrangement of pre-existing material, that does not undermine the fact that new structures begin to exist.

I think what the objection is trying to say is that all of our observations are of things that begin to exist ex-materia, and we have no observations of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.  If all of our observations show that things which begin to exist have causes, then we're justified in thinking everything that begins to exist has a cause whether it begins ex-materia, ex-nihilo, or whatever.  Since this is an inductive argument, we can't have certainty about the conclusion, and it leaves open at least the possibility of something beginning to exist without a cause, but any exception to the general rule that is made without good justification for why the general rule does not apply in that particular case commits the fallacy of special pleading.

But there's another response to the objection that we only observe things beginning to exist ex-material (i.e. rearrangement of pre-existing material), and we have no observation of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  The objection is based on the false assumption that the only way we "know" it's impossible for something to begin ex-nihilo without a cause is by observation.  That assumption is false because our knowledge of the impossibility of something beginning to exist ex-nihilo without a cause is given to us by a rational intuition.  We can rationally grasp the impossibility merely by inward reflection, the same way we grasp the laws of logic and the axioms of geometry.  So we could know this principle is true without having to observe causation in the external world at all.

Sam, do you have any examples of thing beginning to exist ex nihlo?

[Lambert]

I agree with Jeffrey, that things do begin to exist, and it's absurd to suggest that they don't.  Granted, the beginning of the existence of some things (like ourselves) is the result of a rearrangement of pre-existing material, that does not undermine the fact that new structures begin to exist.

I think what the objection is trying to say is that all of our observations are of things that begin to exist ex-materia, and we have no observations of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.  If all of our observations show that things which begin to exist have causes, then we're justified in thinking everything that begins to exist has a cause whether it begins ex-materia, ex-nihilo, or whatever.  Since this is an inductive argument, we can't have certainty about the conclusion, and it leaves open at least the possibility of something beginning to exist without a cause, but any exception to the general rule that is made without good justification for why the general rule does not apply in that particular case commits the fallacy of special pleading.

But there's another response to the objection that we only observe things beginning to exist ex-material (i.e. rearrangement of pre-existing material), and we have no observation of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  The objection is based on the false assumption that the only way we "know" it's impossible for something to begin ex-nihilo without a cause is by observation.  That assumption is false because our knowledge of the impossibility of something beginning to exist ex-nihilo without a cause is given to us by a rational intuition.  We can rationally grasp the impossibility merely by inward reflection, the same way we grasp the laws of logic and the axioms of geometry.  So we could know this principle is true without having to observe causation in the external world at all.

Sam, do you have any examples of thing beginning to exist ex nihlo?

I am not Sam, but there is no such a thing as beginning to exist if existence is the essence called to exist prior to its form. This so becomes Design by Intelligence from within, where RNA are the building blocks for DNA. Then if you add that RNA is convertible from the outside in, it follows that DNA is convertible from the inside out the be the efficient cause of the Intelligent Design that science is trying to figure out by looking at it from the outside in.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

I agree with Jeffrey, that things do begin to exist, and it's absurd to suggest that they don't.  Granted, the beginning of the existence of some things (like ourselves) is the result of a rearrangement of pre-existing material, that does not undermine the fact that new structures begin to exist.

I think what the objection is trying to say is that all of our observations are of things that begin to exist ex-materia, and we have no observations of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.  If all of our observations show that things which begin to exist have causes, then we're justified in thinking everything that begins to exist has a cause whether it begins ex-materia, ex-nihilo, or whatever.  Since this is an inductive argument, we can't have certainty about the conclusion, and it leaves open at least the possibility of something beginning to exist without a cause, but any exception to the general rule that is made without good justification for why the general rule does not apply in that particular case commits the fallacy of special pleading.

But there's another response to the objection that we only observe things beginning to exist ex-material (i.e. rearrangement of pre-existing material), and we have no observation of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  The objection is based on the false assumption that the only way we "know" it's impossible for something to begin ex-nihilo without a cause is by observation.  That assumption is false because our knowledge of the impossibility of something beginning to exist ex-nihilo without a cause is given to us by a rational intuition.  We can rationally grasp the impossibility merely by inward reflection, the same way we grasp the laws of logic and the axioms of geometry.  So we could know this principle is true without having to observe causation in the external world at all.

Sam, do you have any examples of thing beginning to exist ex nihlo?

I am not Sam, but there is no such a thing as beginning to exist if existence is the essence called to exist prior to its form. This so becomes Design by Intelligence from within, where RNA are the building blocks for DNA. Then if you add that RNA is convertible from the outside in, it follows that DNA is convertible from the inside out the be the efficient cause of the Intelligent Design that science is trying to figure out by looking at it from the outside in.

We still distinguish between RNA and DNA. They're fundamental differences between anything and its parts. Simple logic logic tells us that if A is different from B in one possible world, it follows that A is in fact not B. It's logically impossible for me to exist as my parts.

Existence is the "becoming" of anything. We can say that A begins b to exist at some time T, when prior to T it did not exist. We do see things created without preexisting material. What are thoughts made up of? Nothing. So whenever I think about something that I've never thought about before, I'm generating that thought without any preexisting material. 

[Lambert]

I agree with Jeffrey, that things do begin to exist, and it's absurd to suggest that they don't.  Granted, the beginning of the existence of some things (like ourselves) is the result of a rearrangement of pre-existing material, that does not undermine the fact that new structures begin to exist.

I think what the objection is trying to say is that all of our observations are of things that begin to exist ex-materia, and we have no observations of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.  If all of our observations show that things which begin to exist have causes, then we're justified in thinking everything that begins to exist has a cause whether it begins ex-materia, ex-nihilo, or whatever.  Since this is an inductive argument, we can't have certainty about the conclusion, and it leaves open at least the possibility of something beginning to exist without a cause, but any exception to the general rule that is made without good justification for why the general rule does not apply in that particular case commits the fallacy of special pleading.

But there's another response to the objection that we only observe things beginning to exist ex-material (i.e. rearrangement of pre-existing material), and we have no observation of things beginning to exist ex-nihilo.  The objection is based on the false assumption that the only way we "know" it's impossible for something to begin ex-nihilo without a cause is by observation.  That assumption is false because our knowledge of the impossibility of something beginning to exist ex-nihilo without a cause is given to us by a rational intuition.  We can rationally grasp the impossibility merely by inward reflection, the same way we grasp the laws of logic and the axioms of geometry.  So we could know this principle is true without having to observe causation in the external world at all.

Sam, do you have any examples of thing beginning to exist ex nihlo?

I am not Sam, but there is no such a thing as beginning to exist if existence is the essence called to exist prior to its form. This so becomes Design by Intelligence from within, where RNA are the building blocks for DNA. Then if you add that RNA is convertible from the outside in, it follows that DNA is convertible from the inside out the be the efficient cause of the Intelligent Design that science is trying to figure out by looking at it from the outside in.

We still distinguish between RNA and DNA. They're fundamental differences between anything and its parts. Simple logic logic tells us that if A is different from B in one possible world, it follows that A is in fact not B. It's logically impossible for me to exist as my parts.

Yes but RNA has no being of its own to define existence (no genes in RNA) to be the wherewithal of DNA.

Existence is the "becoming" of anything. We can say that A begins b to exist at some time T, when prior to T it did not exist. We do see things created without preexisting material. What are thoughts made up of? Nothing. So whenever I think about something that I've never thought about before, I'm generating that thought without any preexisting material.

None, existence is and becoming is to be.

You can say anything you want. Thoughts do not exits and at best are angels send as messenger with no being of their own. There is no material anywhere near to thoughts.

Your thoughts are the product of a rout in which a positive and negative take a stand that will yield a conclusion that is either iconic or remain a fantasy, and thus will come to be or not.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

I don't want to take quote of a quote of a quote of a quote, so I'll just start anew.

Are you saying RNA does not exist? I'm confused. You are assuming the existence of something to say that it "is," and also "to be." "Coming to be" is a better phrase, and it embodies what I mean. A sandwich was not a sandwich until the combination of its parts,  so therefore, its parts "became" a sandwich. But if the sandwich is not the same as Its parts, so it follows that the sandwich did not exist until the combinations of its parts.

Thoughts do exist, not as something tangible, but they do exist. Are denying that I am thinking how to explain this to you when before I read your post I was not thinking about how to explain this to you? Aren't my thoughts "something?" It seems to me that they are.

[Lambert]

I don't want to take quote of a quote of a quote of a quote, so I'll just start anew.

Are you saying RNA does not exist? I'm confused. You are assuming the existence of something to say that it "is," and also "to be." "Coming to be" is a better phrase, and it embodies what I mean. A sandwich was not a sandwich until the combination of its parts,  so therefore, its parts "became" a sandwich. But if the sandwich is not the same as Its parts, so it follows that the sandwich did not exist until the combinations of its parts.

Thoughts do exist, not as something tangible, but they do exist. Are denying that I am thinking how to explain this to you when before I read your post I was not thinking about how to explain this to you? Aren't my thoughts "something?" It seems to me that they are.

So here a positive speaker and a receptive listener are the two opposites needed for a rout to occur, and when a stand is made the thought is created that leads to understanding as knowledge tied down to the whole that we call soul or TOL as the essence of the being called man.

So here we have outside influence that we call learning that can be tied in RNA to have an effect on our DNA if needed that so is intelligence  by design as per Gen.1, 2 and 3 . . . where so 'like god' is doing the thinking for God.

Yes thoughts have existence but they have no being of their own, and that is why the ancients called them angels as messengers send.

[Sam Harper]

Yes but reason is the enemy of intuition and that is why illumination is not a product of thinking.

Intuition is the friend of reason.  After all, reason would not be possible without intuition.  There are only so many times you can ask, "How do you know that?" before you arrive at an a-priori item of knowledge.

I think that everything is created ex-nihilo to be formed after the image it is created to be, that so is why creation is the leading edge of evolution that rearranges particles by design from within.

I have no idea what you just said.  Sorry.  :-(

[Sam Harper]

Sam, do you have any examples of thing beginning to exist ex nihlo?

You mean besides the universe?  I don't know.  I think it's possible that energy is created ex-nihilo every time the direction of causation is from the mind to the brain, for example when we act out of a belief or desire.  It's a solution I came up with to the interaction problem that I'm not totally sold on.

[Sam Harper]

I am not Sam, but there is no such a thing as beginning to exist if existence is the essence called to exist prior to its form. This so becomes Design by Intelligence from within, where RNA are the building blocks for DNA. Then if you add that RNA is convertible from the outside in, it follows that DNA is convertible from the inside out the be the efficient cause of the Intelligent Design that science is trying to figure out by looking at it from the outside in.

You're not the reincarnation of Martin Heidegger, are you?